Newer planes becoming more smooth?

Wysiwyg, indeed LAX’s 4 runways are massive, well, 3 of the 4 at least. 25R and 24L are typically used for takeoffs, and they always go to the West over the Pacific, so there are no obstacles to clear. I, myself, have never seen or experienced takeoffs to the east at LAX. The longest flight out of LAX currently is QF’s LAX-MEL flight which is 7,900+ statute miles. SIN is too far to operate a non-stop flight (The A340-500 will supposedly alleviate this problem). SIA has stops in NRT and TPE on their 2 flights to LAX. UA has stops in NRT and HKG. Either way, those 7,000+ mile flights I’m sure are fully fueled, and if they only require 75% full thrust, then so be it. They do have a lot of runway to work with. Lastly, Kabir, when I flew Singapore from SYD-SIN, it was only a 7 hour flight, which means they probably only require about half the fuel needed for a 13 hour flight to LHR, per se. They still used up quite a bit of runway. Maybe it’s airline procedure to do so.

Isn’t a lot of this down to size of aircraft as much as an anything else; i.e. turbulence/power etc… being more noticeable in a smaller aircraft.

Originally posted by dan330
Gaurav – what was worse, the turbulence or having to watch Will and Grace?

I don’t mind some of the mild turbulence, as Ren says “reminds you your flying”.
I never used to be keen but after spending a few hours a day over central Florida in a Cessna for three weeks, a bit of turbulence in a jet suddenly didn’t seem that bad!

Umm…
but i like wathcing Will ANd Grace, especially that woman with a big mouth

Surface winds may have an effect on the take off derate depending on the individual company’s SOP. A headwind component on take off reduces the groundspeed reached at lift off simulating the effect of having a longer runway in still air conditions. My company ignores any headwind component when calculating take off performance for 2 reasons. Firstly the 757 is so powerful that we are rarely struggling for performance and secondly if you have based your departure V speeds and thrust derate on a certain headwind component you will be stuffed if the wind drops or swings to a different direction before departure and have to go through all the calculations again. Obviously if you are flying an aircraft which is relatively low performance you will need to go into the performance tables and use the improvements offered by the headwind component to be able to obtain figures that allow you to depart. So in summary, airlines operating low powered aircraft (eg turboprops and older jets) mostly use headwind component in their performance calculation as SOP while most modern operators don’t unless needed.

Greekdude – It’s been sometime since I was last in LAX but if I remember rightly all the runways are pretty massive. I would have to ask SkyCruiser to find out about 747-400 take off performance at high take off masses but if departing to the west (out to sea with no obstacles to clear) if the runway is long enough there is no reason why a fully laden 747-400 going to Singapore shouldn’t depart with full derate (75% of full take off thrust).

With regard to landing, some while ago I quoted from the 757/767 flight crew training manual about Boeing recommended landing technique. This mentions that the correct technique is for a firm and positive arrival. Soft landing are bad news in big jets as they use up runway while airborne which could be used for braking.
You bring up an interesting point about the 777 landing though which I would love to hear a response from Monster. I wonder if the extra pair of wheels on a 777 6 wheel bogey facilitates better energy absorption on touchdown?

regards
wys

Originally posted by greekdude1
A 14 hour LAX-SYD flight on a fully loaded 744, I’m assuming would be pretty darn near full power on take off. The plane is pretty much shaking as it rotates. Still much smoother than the classic 747’s especially the -100’s, in particular the landings. On TWA’s 747’s in the early 80’s, it felt like we were bouncing around on the landing, untill all 18 wheels were on the ground. It’s not like that at all on the 744, or even a 743 for that matter. On a 777, you can’t even tell that you’ve landed, it’s so smooth.

It will have to use full trust…but if wind conditions are very favourable it might not use it. I rememebr my SIA flight from SIN-MEL taking up almost the whole runway for take-off.

A 14 hour LAX-SYD flight on a fully loaded 744, I’m assuming would be pretty darn near full power on take off. The plane is pretty much shaking as it rotates. Still much smoother than the classic 747’s especially the -100’s, in particular the landings. On TWA’s 747’s in the early 80’s, it felt like we were bouncing around on the landing, untill all 18 wheels were on the ground. It’s not like that at all on the 744, or even a 743 for that matter. On a 777, you can’t even tell that you’ve landed, it’s so smooth.

Originally posted by wysiwyg
A few points –

Kabir’s turbulence summary is faultless.

Pilots don’t advance the thrust levers on modern jets, autothrottles do after the pilots press the TOGA switches.

Most take offs are completed with the thrust reduced (derated) to a minimum level that still guarantees adequate performance. This allows greater time between major overhauls reducing down time. Every now and then it is a requirement that we carry out a full power take off to ensure that the aircraft systems are still capable of generating full power. Also some locations (eg my departure out of Funchal yesterday) require a full power take off for performance reasons. From this you can see that the smoothness of take off thrust application is not type dependant but dependant on circumstance.

Another factor worth considering is that short haul aircraft more frequently fly out of performance limited airports than long haul aircraft, eg Funchal, Aberdeen, Genoa, Guernsey, etc.

regards
wys

dont the jet winds and ground winds also play a major factor in take-offs Wys?

Gaurav – what was worse, the turbulence or having to watch Will and Grace?

I don’t mind some of the mild turbulence, as Ren says “reminds you your flying”.
I never used to be keen but after spending a few hours a day over central Florida in a Cessna for three weeks, a bit of turbulence in a jet suddenly didn’t seem that bad!

A few points –

Kabir’s turbulence summary is faultless.

Pilots don’t advance the thrust levers on modern jets, autothrottles do after the pilots press the TOGA switches.

Most take offs are completed with the thrust reduced (derated) to a minimum level that still guarantees adequate performance. This allows greater time between major overhauls reducing down time. Every now and then it is a requirement that we carry out a full power take off to ensure that the aircraft systems are still capable of generating full power. Also some locations (eg my departure out of Funchal yesterday) require a full power take off for performance reasons. From this you can see that the smoothness of take off thrust application is not type dependant but dependant on circumstance.

Another factor worth considering is that short haul aircraft more frequently fly out of performance limited airports than long haul aircraft, eg Funchal, Aberdeen, Genoa, Guernsey, etc.

regards
wys

Originally posted by Ren Frew
I often find turbulence more interesting than in flight movies. Naturally it can be deadly serious though. Mild stuff I enjoy, reminds you your flying.:rolleyes:

I have a bad thing with turbulcence. Ages ago when I was on Air India going to Rome we got turbulence while having lunch and i couldn’t put the milk in my tea without it dropping. Then Will and Hrace was on the entertainment screen thingy. So I was trying to eat, watch willl and Grace and cope with turbulence at the sdame time

That’s technology for you!

But in particular, why are the takeoffs so smooth? You really dont feel as much of the power as I used to.

I often find turbulence more interesting than in flight movies. Naturally it can be deadly serious though. Mild stuff I enjoy, reminds you your flying.:rolleyes:

You like turbulkence. You mad!!!

turbulance is not in the hands of the pilot nor in the hand of aircrafty…its in the hands of god. Although yes technology has helped making flight smoother but to a very large extent if turbulance is headed your way you have to go thruough it unless alter. are made.